August 3, 2005

Atrios' site averages 134,000 unique IPs a day (note that several people can be reading from one IP), so we know that 0.697% of these donated through Atrios' page. The entire liberal blogosphere averages much, much higher readership, (DailyKOS alone averages 544,000 unique IPs per day, peaking to over 750,000 on busy days,) but let's pretend that 9,682 total donors amounts to 1%.

That means that 99% of us supposedly informed, active blog readers sat this one out.

Yes, the campaign did receive plenty of money, but I still have a question: Are the 99% of us who sat on the sidelines that much different from the right-wing "chickenhawks" who advocate war but refuse to sign up themselves? One thing those on the right at least DO is contribute money to their cause. Big money. And their businesses also support their movement. They believe it is a duty, a moral obligation to support their beliefs - at least financially.

Many religious people "tithe" 10% of pre-tax income to their churches. That is seriously putting their money where their beliefs are. (And how much of this is finding its way into the "conservative movement" machine?)

I have some ideas on what to do about the problem of Progressives failing to support Progressive organizations, and hope to be writing about it. In the meantime, think about what this means. Think about how it relates to the problems we all face. 59 million people voted for Kerry in 2004. How many of us are ready to donate 10% of our pre-tax income to Progressive organizations, and what would be the effect on our country and the world if we did that?

Posted by Dave Johnson at August 3, 2005 4:51 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.fcgi/613

Comments

Dave, do you have any ideas about the most effective way those of us who have to get by on ten grand or less can contribute?

"Are the 99% of us who sat on the sidelines that much different from the right-wing 'chickenhawks' who advocate war but refuse to sign up themselves?" Absolutely. Expressing verbal support for a cause and not happening to have any money to give to that cause is far different than advocating war or killing by proxy. Please have a little perspective here.

Dave, if I had more disposable income I would contribute. But with a kid in college, and one with necessary but uninsured dental work being done this year ($8K) we have to prioritize our giving.

We support environmental groups (Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, Audubon Soc, etc.), our church, and social justice issues (hunger, homelessness) and have started sponsoring a young girl in Honduras. We did give a local Democratic candidate $20 last year, by the way.

So what am I doing? Calling and writing congresspeople, talking to folks, reading/informing myself about issues, getting involved in a local interfaith social justice action group among other things. Not sitting on the sidelines. I hope that all of us that are passionate about our country get involved however we can.

Posted by: Anon at August 6, 2005 5:48 PM

ow THIS is what I'm talking about. Anon is goving to several causes AND supporting a kid in Honduras, AND goving money to candidates, and thinks he or she is not giving enough.

Others give $10 to a candidate one time and think they've done their part for the next 10 years. It's THOSE people who we need to work on to understand that they should be giving until it HURTS. How else are we going to beat back this right-wing machine?